1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 19, 1987, the Plaintiff acquired the land of 1,514 square meters in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Incheon-do (hereinafter “the previous land”), which was divided into C; hereinafter “the previous land”). On May 9, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred the said land to Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do.

B. On August 2, 2013, the Plaintiff et al. and five other (hereinafter “Plaintiff et al.”) jointly acquired 4,991 square meters (hereinafter “the instant substitute land”) prior to D, Sejong-si (hereinafter “instant substitute land”) (the Plaintiff’s share 1,681/4,991, and 662/4,991, each of the remaining five equity interests).

C. On December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff cultivated agricultural products with a total of 1,435 square meters of the previous land in this case for at least three years, among 1,035 square meters, and filed a transfer income tax report by applying the provisions on reduction and exemption of transfer income tax to the Defendant on the previous land, asserting that the Plaintiff acquired the instant substitute land within one year from the date of transfer and re-Cultivating agricultural products again.

On June 12, 2015, the Defendant denied the application for reduction of capital gains tax on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant substitute farmland, and notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of KRW 87,146,750 for capital gains tax reverted to year 2012.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On July 8, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 3, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional evidence), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by the Plaintiff as a professional farmer for a long time in the previous land. The Plaintiff’s assertion appears to mean the portion of 2,185 square meters in the land following the division, which is deemed to be below the North part of the land in question, by acquiring the land in question together with the siblings, with the land in question upon expropriation.

This part of this case’s land is called “North Korea’s land.”